[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6242-6243]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        BIOTECHNOLOGY AND TRADE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words today 
about biotechnology and trade. As a working family farmer, I see the 
effects of this debate nearly every week at the grain elevators in my 
hometown of New Hartford, Iowa.
  With the benefit of this personal experience, and as chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee's International Trade Subcommittee, I have 
addressed the issue of biotechnology and trade in many ways.
  Last October, my Trade Subcommittee looked at the biotechnology issue 
during hearings on agricultural trade policy. Last fall, I brought 
Charles Ludolph, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Europe, 
to Iowa to hear the concerns our corn and soybean growers have about 
the European food scare over GMO products. Last December, I addressed 
this issue at the WTO Ministerial Conference Meeting in Seattle.
  And I have continued to have high-level discussions about trade in 
genetically modified foods with the European Commission. I recently had 
another meeting in this city with David Byrne, the EU Commissioner for 
Consumer Health and Safety Protection. This was a very informative 
meeting. If followed a lengthy session I had with Commissioner Byrne in 
Seattle.
  In our Washington meeting, Commissioner Byrne and I discussed recent 
developments affecting trade and biotechnology within the European 
Union.
  It is with this deep background, and my long-standing concern about 
biotechnology and trade, that I would like to report to the people of 
Iowa and America that I still have great concerns about what we are 
seeing in Europe, and now in Japan.
  For nearly 30 years, Europe's governments have been telling their 
people that modern agricultural technology is dangerous. First, it was 
the pesticide scare of the 1970s. Even though we have added eight years 
to our life spans since we started widely spraying modern pesticides on 
our crops. Then it was growth hormones in meat. Even though European 
scientists have confirmed the safety of these hormones. Now it's 
genetically modified foods. Even though not one person has ever caught 
so much as a cold from eating a genetically enriched product.
  Now we learn that just last week, Japan's Ministry of Health and 
Welfare is getting set to require mandatory safety tests on genetically 
modified foods before they can be imported into Japan. This will 
dramatically and adversely affect our farmers, who ship about $10 
billion worth of products a year to Japan. Every year, Japan relies on 
United States production for 80 percent of its corn imports.
  Japan is taking this action even though genetically modified products 
produced in the United States must be approved by a food regulatory 
agency that the world looks to as the model for what a food safety 
agency should do.
  And both the Japanese and the European Union governments know that 
genetically modified foods are only approved for sale after thousands 
of field trials and rigorous testing.
  So what's going on?
  Mr. President, I am convinced that a good part of these developments 
can be explained by a desire to restrain trade. Non-tariff trade 
barriers we've been fighting to eliminate for 50 years. Agricultural 
producers in Europe, and in Japan, can't grow corn, or soybeans, or 
many other products more efficiently, at better prices, than we can. So 
they look for other means to counter the competitive edge we enjoy.
  After the United States and our trading partners agreed to the 
Agreement on Agriculture, one of the Uruguay Round Agreements, it is 
more difficult now to use quotas, tariffs, and subsidies to favor 
domestic producers.
  So fear is used instead.
  Mr. President, it was a Democrat President, Franklin Roosevelt, who 
said, ``The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.'' As far as 
biotechnology is concerned, the only thing Europe, and now Japan, have 
to offer is fear. It's how the Europeans have protected their domestic 
agricultural markets from American competition for 30 years.
  Just look at the comment by Germany's environment minister, Jurgen 
Tritten, when the European Commission proposed a redrafting of the 
legislation governing the admission of genetically modified products 
into the EU. Just as they planned it, this new European Union 
legislation has the effect of slowing the approval of new U.S. 
genetically modified products in Europe to a trickle. The German 
minister was elected. He hailed this legislation as a ``de facto 
moratorium.''
  And if it's not the case that the Europeans, and now Japan, are using 
fear as a new trade barrier, why is it that these governments, and the 
antibiotechnology activists who are so worried about the impact of 
genetically modified foods, seem completely unconcerned about 
biotechnology in medicine? Is it because they really know that medical 
uses of biotechnology are completely safe?
  I don't want to give the impression that all of this consumer fear 
has been whipped up just to restrain trade. There is always legitimate 
concern about new technology, especially in food.
  But in my view, the unprecedented safety record of our food 
regulatory system completely eliminates this concern.
  And it appears that Europe's governments have overplayed the extent 
of consumer concern. A recent poll of 16,000 Europeans by the European 
Commission's own Environment Directorate found that Europe's citizens 
are less concerned about GMOs than they are over other environmental 
issues. When asked to rank their chief environmental concerns on a list 
of nine issues, GMOs finished ninth, in last place.
  There is also another dimension to this issue you don't hear the 
antibiotech activists talk about. That is the fact that we can now 
prove that biotechnology is the most powerful tool for good that our 
researchers have ever had.
  Right now, some 400 million people currently suffer from Vitamin A 
deficiency, including millions of children who go blind every year. A 
new genetically-enhanced form of rice containing beta-carotene, called 
``golden rice,'' will mean these children will not be cruelly robbed of 
their sight.
  Another form of ``golden rice'' included genes to overcome the 
chronic iron deficiency suffered by 2 billion people in rice cultures. 
Women have always been subject to extra risk from birth complications 
because of anemia.
  What are the terrible risks in our food approval system that would 
justify blinding children, or subjecting Asian women to birth 
complications? The answer is simple: there are none. There is just the 
polities of fear.
  Because biotechnology is such a great force for good, this must 
change. What can we do about it? I don't have all the answers. But I do 
know this. We have got to talk about finding a worldwide solution. And 
we can only do that if the United States leads.
  Right now, the Quad Countries--the United States, the European Union, 
Japan, and Canada--lack a coherent vision for how to address the 
biotechnology issue. This is largely because the senior Quad partner, 
the

[[Page 6243]]

United States, has backed away from its traditional leadership role in 
shaping global trade policy. In fact, as a result of this 
administration's lack of focus and vision, this is the first time in 50 
years that we have not succeeded in going forward with a new global 
trade liberalization agenda.
  As a result, the United States is reduced to agreeing to half-hearted 
ideas put forward by the European Commission in Geneva, like a 
``consultative forum'' to look at biotech issues. Mr. President, I'm 
not even sure what a ``consultative forum'' is, or what it is supposed 
to accomplish, but we have agreed to it.
  Another sign of this administration's failure of leadership on trade 
is the fact that at Seattle, we refused to seek a comprehensive round, 
knowing this unreasonable posture would never be accepted by our 
trading partners. In fact, the administration's refusal to negotiate a 
comprehensive round was a complete reversal of United States policy 
that successfully launched and completed the last round of global trade 
negotiations, the Uruguay Round.
  In 1986, our then United States Trade Representative, Clayton 
Yeutter, said only a comprehensive round would result in the greatest 
gains for the United States. He was right. It did.
  I have a high regard for Ambassador Rita Hayes and her team in 
Geneva. They are leading agriculture negotiations that started about 
one month ago. But their hands are tied. They have to negotiate within 
a very narrow framework because a political decision made months ago to 
limit the scope of new global trade negotiations made it all but 
certain that the talks in Seattle would not succeed.
  This is certainly a far cry from the traditional, bold United States 
trade agenda that has brought us such tremendous prosperity.
  Right now, agriculture is struggling. Our farmers are struggling. Mr. 
President, I said a few moments ago that Europe and Japan are using 
fear in place of facts with regard to trade and biotechnology.
  But we cannot counter fear with uncertainty. We cannot combat false 
information with confusion. And we cannot oppose political expediency 
in Europe with a lack of resolve at home.
  There is a great debate going on about extraordinary new technology 
and trade that we must lead. that sort of focused international 
leadership can only come from the White House. Because America speaks 
diplomatically only thru the Office of the President, we need an 
administration that understands that we must trade globally, so we can 
prosper locally.
  I urge the administration in the strongest possible terms to rise to 
this challenge.

                          ____________________